To not understand why people don't understand men cannot be raped by a woman?

[TurquoiseChevrotain]

I've read a lot whenever this comes up on here or elsewhere, that it's 'terrible' and such an outdated view. Why is it? Why can't people understand what rape is? Men can be sexually assaulted by women, but not raped.

I would be against a classification system such as that described by feminist. We have a classification system with (non sex) assaults - abh, gbh, gbh with intent...and there is already too much negotiation and legal wrangling to get the more serious assault charges lessens to the lower categories by defence teams. It would be dreadful to see that happen to the victims of rape and would possibly minimise their experience.

"Also, for those who see rape as a method of control it doesn’t matter what is used. The penis is almost irrelevant. The rapist hasn’t caused less humiliation with an object than with a penis"

This ^. Im not sure why we are specifically excluding this from the term rape as in terms of the damage done, the victim is still just as affected.
There are a number of support services for this that specifically use the word rape like "rape crisis centre" etc, and telling men and women who have been raped that in fact they havent because it wasnt by a penis and therefore these services "arent really for them" seems cruel and arbitrary.

I can see something like 'Class A' sexual assaults, being coming widely known as the most heinous of crimes. That everyone knows must involve something other than a penis, but is quite definitely as bad, if not worse.

Part of my problem with this is the issue of identity. When women say they want their own spaces, they are frequently met with the counterclaim that 'women rape too'. It's a very effective answer to say no they don't. (This is entirely separate to the issue of female violence. And I'm only talking about specific conversations involving male violence).

I would feel very concerned if the crime of rape was suddenly not sex specific.

We are already seeing reports of 'women' who have raped, because of the legal term woman being up for grabs. Sometimes, in the report, the only way you know that the perpetrator is male is because it is rape.

There is already a specific offence of assault by penetration for people who have, colloquially, been raped by something other than a penis. It has the same maximum sentence as rape and is described by the CPS as "in essence similar to rape".
Why is there such a problem with recognising that men are in a unique position of being able to penetrate someone with their penis?
If there are any men on the thread, would you feel unwanted sex with a woman (you penetrate them) is the same as being penetrated by a man? It seems like it might be different to me.

The reason I raise assault by penetration is because people have been suggesting being penetrated by a bottle would be treated like being groped on the boob. Not true.

QuentinSummers

I agree with you. I think it's the public perception of the world rape that is bothering people. It's as though being penetrated by an object is simply not as 'legitimate' as being raped.

Therefore the perception needs to change, not the law.

If there are any men on the thread, would you feel unwanted sex with a woman (you penetrate them) is the same as being penetrated by a man? It seems like it might be different to me.

Yes. Absolutely. Are you really saying a man being sodomised against his will isn't as horrific as a female being raped?

Sorry Quentin, I've reread and realise I got the wrong end of the stick.

However I'm not sure we can grade the effects of unwanted sex. It depends on circumstances and also on the victim, male ot female.

I agree flying. I am frankly horrified at the suggestion that a man wouldn't feel as bad if he was forced into having sex with a woman or penetrated with an object as he would feel if he was forcibly penetrated by a penis. It's this very reason why a sexual assault classification system would not work well.

Or Datun, the law is changed to what most people understand rape to be. I don't think having different categories will help - rape would still be seen as the most serious case.

Idiots who argue that against safe spaces for women will still argue it whatever.

I think being forced to penetrate someone is different than forcibly being penetrated. I guess because of the increased risk of injury/pain through being penetrated. Because of this I think rape/ assault by penetration are different.
In fact I think a woman "lowering herself onto an erect penis" (as suggested above) is more analogous to being "grabbed by the pussy" (another lovely quote). Unwanted and a violation, but not as violent as penetration. Just my opinion though.

There is still an enormous risk of infection quentin and it is still a huge violation.

And it is not remotely similar to being grabbed by the pussy.

Maybe the crimes are seen in law as equally bad but it's judges who sentence people. If some idiot judge cannot understand that not consenting to having an inanimate object rammed up his anus multiple times is a horrifying experience and gives out a paltry few hours community service as a punishment then the law is ineffectual. Maybe they think men should be to strong to be put in that position maybe they think (like many do regarding women ) that they asked for it. It doesn't matter what they think it is sending out a clear message that you can brutally sexually assault someone but hey its only 'sex play' and she is a woman after all so it doesn't matter any more than not paying your parking ticket.

But sentencing is the same for both so I don't understand this point?

If anything, in the example you describe the person committing the crime would probably be sentenced more harshly than if it had been a woman raped by a penis. As the woman would be less likely to be believed as there seems to be a widespread belief that women sleep with men willingly and then simply regret it so 'cry rape'

Nowhere near as bad as women seeing as if he didn't want it he wouldn't get it up, he probably sees it as a treat nudge wink" like those comments on articles about female teachers raping underage students where everyone calls him lucky and says how they wish it'd happened to them at school.

I really hate that. Its usually guys who say stuff like that too tbf, very unlikely to be women saying that. I am on another forum and there was a story a while back ab out a female teacher sleeping with a 14 year old male student. The women were horrified by it all and the guys were like 'oh shes hot, good on him' and stuff.

whatsthecomingoverthehill

I do understand. And I don't have a disagreement with the premise at all.

But for the reasons I've stated, I would still like to see the rape be recognised as a sex specific crime.

Although I realise, that at this point in the thread, I probably can't have both.

I shall do some creative thinking and see if I can come up with a solution.

There is still an enormous risk of infection quentin
Well, no it's not the same. Women are much more likely to catch an STD from unprotected sex.
I said it was a violation too. I also said it was my opinion.
Why is using a vagina to grab a penis worse than using a hand to grab a clitoris? Same act, just a different actor
If they are different, then why cantpenetration by a penis be different to penetration by a bottle?

Why not change the legal definition to "non-consensual sex". as the adverts say. No means NO.
Rape is always going to be mainly a PIV crime but the law needs to be blind to the sex of the aggressor so we can treat everyone equally with regards to how heinous the crime is.

Change the terminology- forceable enclosure!

I really hate that. Its usually guys who say stuff like that too tbf, very unlikely to be women saying that. I am on another forum and there was a story a while back ab out a female teacher sleeping with a 14 year old male student. The women were horrified by it all and the guys were like 'oh shes hot, good on him' and stuff.

Or films like 40 Days and 40 Nights or Wedding Crashers where a woman having sex with a man against his will is seen as funny. (Or even worse in Weddings Crashers, as something he actually wants...so that's ok then...)

Things like warts and herpes and live carry a huge risk for both men and women quentin.
I really don't understand your reasoning. It seems similar to those that argue that a Woman who has only ever had Sex with one man will be more affected by being raped than a woman who has had a hundred sexual partners. Forcing a man to out his penis in your vagina is not similar to grabbing a clitoris work a hand because a hand is not a sexual organ.

Hang on here. If a woman 'rapes' a man in the sense that's been discussed here (no need to remind me that legally she can't!), why should she not be blamed, and how might she be the victim?

Just got to here, sorry I may have put the point across wrong here given a couple of people seem to have taken it the wrong way I assume it was me, rather than people reading it wrong.

I meant, the 'women do it too!!!!!' brigade who pop up each time there is a case of a man raping someone, would say it even more. Not that a woman 'raping' a man is the victim. But basically, when there is a case of rape, the woman is blamed for being drunk, or walking alone and such. So not only would we have 'it was the womans fault she got raped' we would also have 'women rape people too'

Also if rape was no longer defined as someone using their penis, we would have even less way of knowing that the 'woman charged with rape' stories in the press were bullshit and that it was actually (as usual) a male committing the crime.

Rape is always going to be mainly a PIV crime but the law needs to be blind to the sex of the aggressor so we can treat everyone equally with regards to how heinous the crime is
At the moment securing a conviction for rape is hard. The issue of all this non consensual sex women are forcing men to have is an MRA straw man (like DV shelters for men). The system can cater for all assaults. I don't see the need to fix it, apart from to obfuscate the fact that men rape women.

Sorry for spelling errors. I have a poorly baby resting on me affecting my ability to type.

Forcing a man to out his penis in your vagina is not similar to grabbing a clitoris work a hand because a hand is not a sexual organ.
So upthread the argument was that penetration by a penis was the same as penetration by an object so women could rape by penetration.
Now the argument is grabbing with a vagina is different to grabbing with a hand and more serious because a vagina is a sex organ